JB/057/127/001

Click Here To Edit

21 June 1804

Procedure

Revised
Ch Removal
(3

The remedy — removal, not to the metropolis, but to the contiguous local
Court.

In any given case instance, on which part is a disposition to
injustice most to be apprehended? On the part of a Deft?
or on the part of the local Judge? The rule that establishes
opens the right of removal to the defendt answers clearly
on the part of the local judge.

But the after all local Judge — may it not happen in this or that particular instance to have to
be prejudiced — partial interested? not safely to be relied upon
in that same cause? Certainly Admitted — and in this consideration if appeal is instituted
it is that it is instituted. But is he then unfit for the po
function in that particular instance. One way there is of knowing,
and but one; and that is to make the experiment. Of the unfitness
of the Judge in the individual instance in question has been proved by experience,
then and then alone is it proper to allow the cause
to be removed elsewhere, at so great the price of and so more a mass of inconvenience
to both parties.

But suppose both parties to join Suppose it at the
instance option of the plff that the removal is suffered to take place. The
objective impropriety of this arrangement is evinced by the same
consideration in this case as in the other. The indication of mala
fides is however much stronger and more conclusive of having the option of instituting the suit at
the metropolitan Court
in the first instance, to
commence it in the local
Court, and then remove
it to the Court above.
The useless commencement
in the court below is so
much vexation,
expense and delay having
vexation oppression for its sole object &
nothing else.

At whose suit option soever the removal is allowed instituted the effect
of the removal is to sacrifice to that party the interests of the other
party and of justice. To choose make choice of an appre
a removal before decision i.e. before it is known that there will be any cause in preference to appeal to a
removal after decision .... after an alledged sufficient cause
has manifested itself, is a plain manifestation of the will, and
by favour of law the power to oppress.

If both parties join A power, given to either party, of removing a
cause at pleasure from a local judicature to a metropolitan is neither more nor
less than a power of oppressing the poor put into the hands of the
rich.

Identifier: | JB/057/127/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 57.
Date_1	1804-06-21	Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	057	Main Headings	evidence; procedure code
Folio number	127	Info in main headings field	procedure
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	e3
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	cw 1799
Marginals		Paper Producer	c. abbit lees
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1799
Notes public		ID Number	18457
Box Contents